Why should other taxpayers have to subsidize gay mating?

[kaz]

Right, people move in together and share expenses, so we want them to have another tax break for that. The concept of marriage is for piling tax breaks on people already cutting their expenses. That's what they want.

It's funny how leftists are so much like Christians. It's about faith, and you love nothing more than the chance to show that faith has led you believe fully something otherwise only an idiot would believe.

I guess you can't have two Gods, and yours is government. That's why you hate Christians, they are competition for the sheep you want to join your faith

I don't hate christians. I'm a christian. What I hate is your bigotry.

Yes, and you don't hate Republicans, they are bigots too, you know, you are one.

The thing with leftist Christians is the leftist comes first

Not all republicans are bigots. Not all Christians are bigots. But you are, clearly, bigoted against gays.

What am I bigoted against? Bigots?

Just as liberty is not the liberty to take rights away from people, like you are doing to gays, bigotry is not the hatred of bigots. See how that works?

I think gays "married" or not should pay the same tax rates as everyone else. That's hating them. Gotcha.

Again, three words to improve your life. Grab, pull, remove...

So you're willing to give up all the breaks you get from having children?

Absolutely, taxes should be flat

 

[kaz]

[

No, they couldn't marry "the person they love" if they were straight either. Men can't marry men and women can't marry women, it doesn't matter if you are straight or not.

That is a limitation on marriage that only serves the purpose of denying gays the right to marry according to their sexual orientation.

You give a man a right to marry a woman, but you don't give a woman the right to marry a woman. That is gender discrimination.

Good argument for the legislature. But since it's literally not treating people different due to their orientation since straight woman can't marry a woman either, it's not a job for the courts

 

[Care4all]

Kaz,

You are INCORRECT that there is any kind of special tax break for Married couples so this whole thread is for NAUGHT.

In FACT there is a tax PENALTY for being married filing jointly....when you reach the higher income levels

Two people being taxed vs one person being taxed....Joining income does not save you in taxes, it actually makes you go in to a HIGHER tax bracket with less combined income than two single people filing that live together.

Marriage penalty - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Under these tax rates, two single people who each earned $87,850 would each file as "Single" and each would pay a marginal tax rate of 25%. However, if those same two people were married, their combined income would be exactly the same as before (2 * $87,850 = $175,700), but the "Married filing Jointly" tax brackets would push them into a higher marginal rate of 28%, costing them an additional $879 in taxes.

In the most extreme case, two single people who each earned $400,000 would each pay a marginal tax rate of 35%; but if those same two people filed as "Married, filing jointly" then their combined income would be exactly the same (2 * $400,000 = $800,000), yet $350,000 of that income would be taxed as the higher 39.6% rate, resulting in a marriage penalty of $32,119 in extra taxes ($16,100 for the 39.6% bracket alone, plus the remainder is due to the higher phase out of the lower brackets.)

 

[kaz]

There is not one gay for whom being gay changes who they can marry

Being gay does change who you want to marry. I am married to a woman. My marriage should be treated exactly like yours. It isn't and that violates the 14th amendment.

If you were straight, your so called marriage to a woman would be treated exactly as it is. Your 14th argument is a fail to all but the leftist indoctrinated like you and RKMBrown who thinks he's a conservative

I'm not straight, I'm gay. I have no interest in marrying a man anymore than Mildred Loving wanted to marry a black man.

I have a civil marriage license issued by my state, just like YOU DO. My license is treated differently thanks to the unconstitutional DOMA...which will be struck down in a few weeks.

Being black changed who you could marry for every black. Being gay changes who you can marry for zero gays. Yeah, that's the same, Rosa Parks

Everyone could marry someone of the same race when anti-miscegenation laws were in place. Based on your thinking,

blacks and whites had the same rights.

That's stupid. If you were black, you could not marry whites, if you were white, you could. That's a applying the same law differently. Your color determined who you could marry. With gay, your orientation does not change who you can marry

 

[kaz]

Gays that marry same sex partners can't reproduce. I thought you knew that?

But as PMH just pointed out, often when one demographic group can't do what another can, denying a license is just common sense.

Then how do single mothers reproduce? Makes no sense. If what you are saying is true, then single mothers can't get pregnant can they?

Single mothers get tax breaks for kids, they do not get marriage tax breaks. You have zero point

Married couples get that same tax break for kids. The marriage tax benefit is not about procreation. I don't care how stupid you are.

Yes, I love the bit where if I believe you are serious then I think you are 10 times as stupid than if I think you are a liar. You believe people think the concept of marriage is that people sharing costs and cutting expenses already need more money. It has nothing to do with their going on and having kids. No one thinks of procreation of the species with marriage. You actually want people to think that's what you believe.

You obviously aren't bouncing your stupid statements off people you know. But then you are lying, so why bother?

Oh, look ... kaz is kazzing again. That's where he attributes a position to me I never took and then beats it up because his argument possesses no merit against what I actually stated.

Here it is again.... straight folks can legally marry the person they love. Where same-sex marriage in not legally permitted, gay folks cannot legally marry the person they love.

You know, what dumbfucks call being 'treated the same.'

And other laws that change based on what you want include...

 

[kaz]

Yes, the state needs to convince the courts not to legislate, that's in the Constitution, I remember that part

The courts don't legislate- that is in the Constitution.

The courts interpret the constitutionality of laws- like they have for marriage laws 3 times in the past.

That's why it's a crime, Sparky. The courts are violating the Constitution by legislating since even as you are aware they have no power to do that. Not liking legislation isn't authority for the courts to overturn it. That is a job for the ... wait for it ... legislature

Cite the statute that criminalizes certain Supreme Court decisions and cite the cases where the statute has been enforced.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"

Do you know what that's from?

It has nothing to do with what I asked you.

It's a direct answer to your question. Maybe you can get your teacher to explain it to you

 

[kaz]

Then how do single mothers reproduce? Makes no sense. If what you are saying is true, then single mothers can't get pregnant can they?

Single mothers get tax breaks for kids, they do not get marriage tax breaks. You have zero point

Married couples get that same tax break for kids. The marriage tax benefit is not about procreation. I don't care how stupid you are.

Yes, I love the bit where if I believe you are serious then I think you are 10 times as stupid than if I think you are a liar. You believe people think the concept of marriage is that people sharing costs and cutting expenses already need more money. It has nothing to do with their going on and having kids. No one thinks of procreation of the species with marriage. You actually want people to think that's what you believe.

You obviously aren't bouncing your stupid statements off people you know. But then you are lying, so why bother?

Oh, look ... kaz is kazzing again. That's where he attributes a position to me I never took and then bears it up because his argument possesses no merit against what I actually stated.

Here it is again.... straight folks can legally marry the person they love. Where same-sex marriage in not legally permitted, gay folks cannot legally marry the person they love.

You know, what dumbfucks call being 'treated the same.'

I wonder if he'd support a state legalizing ONLY same sex marriage. I wonder if he thinks that's constitutional.

(lol, he'll lie and say yes)

Yes, it is Constitutional. That you lie doesn't mean anyone else would. I have been completely consistent in that

 

[kaz]

There is not one gay for whom being gay changes who they can marry

Being gay does change who you want to marry. I am married to a woman. My marriage should be treated exactly like yours. It isn't and that violates the 14th amendment.

If you were straight, your so called marriage to a woman would be treated exactly as it is. Your 14th argument is a fail to all but the leftist indoctrinated like you and RKMBrown who thinks he's a conservative

I'm not straight, I'm gay. I have no interest in marrying a man anymore than Mildred Loving wanted to marry a black man.

I have a civil marriage license issued by my state, just like YOU DO. My license is treated differently thanks to the unconstitutional DOMA...which will be struck down in a few weeks.

Being black changed who you could marry for every black. Being gay changes who you can marry for zero gays. Yeah, that's the same, Rosa Parks

That isn't a response. You have a civil marriage license issued by a U.S. state. It's valid in all 50 states. My civil marriage license issued by a U.S. state is not. Even an anti gay bigot like you can see that's unconstitutional.

Don't understand the Full Faith and Credit clause, do you slut?

 

[kaz]

You still can't understand when I was saying Carter handed Reagan an economy that was not in recession, I was not denying Volker handed Reagan a recession??

Let's go to the video tape...

Again ... Obama inherited an economy in recession ... Reagan did not

I point out how Reagan was handed an economy which wasn't in recession (which it wasn"t)

I said Reagan didn't inherit a recession because he didn't

Once again your lame lies show the idiot that you are. None of those quotes said Reagan didn't get a recession from Carter, they say he didn't inherit a recession. You never get tired of looking stupid, do you?

Holyfuckingshit!

Who do you think Reagan inherited the economy from if not Carter? King George III??



You're a fucking rightard. Don't ever forget that.

You actually are eight, aren't you? I can't keep up with your continually shifting positions. When you pick one, let me know

 

[kaz]

Equal protection for me is being treated equally. Gays have that now

LOL- in a thread where you specifically argue that gay couples should not be treated equally with straight couples.

In a thread where you argue that gay couples should be forced to pay you to be married- while you do not have to pay them for their marriage.

How exactly is that being 'treated equally'?

Strawman, gays are treated exactly like straights. The issue is you don't want them to be. At least start by being honest

Repeating your lies doesn't help you. Never has ... never will.

They are not treated the same. For heterosexuals, the government allows them to legally marry the person they love; but not for homosexuals.

No, they couldn't marry "the person they love" if they were straight either. Men can't marry men and women can't marry women, it doesn't matter if you are straight or not. Men can marry women, it doesn't matter if you are straight or not. That is the job of the courts. The rest is for the legislature.

And still you can't name a law that says "who you want" or any other variable that changes the law. Should I be able to fish in hunting season since I eat fish but I don't eat other meat? That's not suppose, I am vegetarian except I eat fish and seafood

Read it again ... this time, absorb it for clarity ...

Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12 (1967): “The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”​

A gay person whose only marital option is someone he's not in love with because they're not the right gender is denying that gay person's vital personal rights, essential to the inalienable right to pursue happiness.

Yes, marriage is, government marriage is not. Positive rights are not rights for anyone, that's ridiculous. The SCOTUS has a lengthy list of ridiculous rulings to it's credit

 

[kaz]

I don't answer loaded questions unless it's fun. But nowhere did I advocate removing child deductions. My OP post clearly addressed marriage. What you have there is a non-sequitur. The OP post is clear on what it does ... and doesn't ... address.

Here is a three step process that will greatly improve the quality of your life:

1) Grab stick

2) Pull

3) Remove

Wow, it would be a joy for you. And for the rest of the people who have to deal with you

It's your stick Kaz, not mine. You are the one running around with a stick shoving it up the asses of gay folk and now single folk attacking them for being less than a part of heterosexual married couples. You are the one attacking people for being less than worthy in YOUR eyes.

Saying I hate single people shows where the stick is firmly entrenched.

And that doesn't even include that I don't think singles should pay higher rates than married people. But I hate them. Do you read what you post ever? Maybe you should try sometime, it could be eye opening.

BTW, what's with the John Wayne logo? You realize he's a conservative, don't you?

Where did I say you hate single people? I asked you if you hated them. You do know the difference between a question and a statement right?

Google "loaded question"

John Wayne? It's not all about politics Kaz. I'm a fan of the on screen characters that John Wayne portrayed. I used to have my own photo up... but then I saw some creepy stuff going on around here so I pulled it.

OK, thought it might bother you having a conservative on your avatar on a political site

Why do you think I would hand you an unloaded question? BTW you loaded that question all I did was pull the trigger.

No, my avatar does not bother me.

That makes no sense, how did I load the question about "hating" singles? Are you trying to up the stupid in your posts? That's a lofty standard

 

[kaz]

It really annoys me that I agree with you. Just sayin'.

Sorry Faun. Don't worry, we'll be at odds on the next subject. Well that is unless the democrats start getting consistent wrt. their views on liberty. I'll be on your side every time you side with liberty.

Yes, because liberty is getting other people's money of course

Which you are fine with getting- but don't want other people to get.

If they are gay.

They can get it when marriage leads to procreation. For me it did, twice.
t

No- couples get the marriage exemption- regardless of procreation.

You want to deny the 'marriage bennies' that you get- only to homosexual couples. While they pay for your bennies.

You think a pair of 80 year old newly weds are eligible for 'marriage bennies' but not a lesbian couple with 5 kids.

Like I said- you are fine with getting yours- but don't want other people to get it.

If they are gay.

Again, how does it make sense I want benefits when I oppose the benefits? Is all the spinning you're doing making you dizzy?

 

[kaz]

And yes- marriage laws absolutely do change who someone can marry based upon gender.

Name one

 

[kaz]

Kaz,

You are INCORRECT that there is any kind of special tax break for Married couples so this whole thread is for NAUGHT.

In FACT there is a tax PENALTY for being married filing jointly....when you reach the higher income levels

Two people being taxed vs one person being taxed....Joining income does not save you in taxes, it actually makes you go in to a HIGHER tax bracket with less combined income than two single people filing that live together.

Marriage penalty - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Under these tax rates, two single people who each earned $87,850 would each file as "Single" and each would pay a marginal tax rate of 25%. However, if those same two people were married, their combined income would be exactly the same as before (2 * $87,850 = $175,700), but the "Married filing Jointly" tax brackets would push them into a higher marginal rate of 28%, costing them an additional $879 in taxes.

In the most extreme case, two single people who each earned $400,000 would each pay a marginal tax rate of 35%; but if those same two people filed as "Married, filing jointly" then their combined income would be exactly the same (2 * $400,000 = $800,000), yet $350,000 of that income would be taxed as the higher 39.6% rate, resulting in a marriage penalty of $32,119 in extra taxes ($16,100 for the 39.6% bracket alone, plus the remainder is due to the higher phase out of the lower brackets.)

So complete exemption from the death tax is not a tax break? How do you figure that?

And really, you don't know how tax rates work for married people? What you said doesn't contradict me. If the wife stays home, they pay a lower tax rate. What you are talking about is if they both work and earn relatively equal salaries.

However, I said the "concept" of marriage is having a family, in that case they pay a lower rate, which is clearly a tax break no matter how you slice it. Your scenario is them not doing that

 

[Seawytch]

Being gay does change who you want to marry. I am married to a woman. My marriage should be treated exactly like yours. It isn't and that violates the 14th amendment.

If you were straight, your so called marriage to a woman would be treated exactly as it is. Your 14th argument is a fail to all but the leftist indoctrinated like you and RKMBrown who thinks he's a conservative

I'm not straight, I'm gay. I have no interest in marrying a man anymore than Mildred Loving wanted to marry a black man.

I have a civil marriage license issued by my state, just like YOU DO. My license is treated differently thanks to the unconstitutional DOMA...which will be struck down in a few weeks.

Being black changed who you could marry for every black. Being gay changes who you can marry for zero gays. Yeah, that's the same, Rosa Parks

That isn't a response. You have a civil marriage license issued by a U.S. state. It's valid in all 50 states. My civil marriage license issued by a U.S. state is not. Even an anti gay bigot like you can see that's unconstitutional.

Don't understand the Full Faith and Credit clause, do you slut?

I do bigot, but apparently you don't.

 

[kaz]

If you were straight, your so called marriage to a woman would be treated exactly as it is. Your 14th argument is a fail to all but the leftist indoctrinated like you and RKMBrown who thinks he's a conservative

I'm not straight, I'm gay. I have no interest in marrying a man anymore than Mildred Loving wanted to marry a black man.

I have a civil marriage license issued by my state, just like YOU DO. My license is treated differently thanks to the unconstitutional DOMA...which will be struck down in a few weeks.

Being black changed who you could marry for every black. Being gay changes who you can marry for zero gays. Yeah, that's the same, Rosa Parks

That isn't a response. You have a civil marriage license issued by a U.S. state. It's valid in all 50 states. My civil marriage license issued by a U.S. state is not. Even an anti gay bigot like you can see that's unconstitutional.

Don't understand the Full Faith and Credit clause, do you slut?

I do bigot, but apparently you don't.

What you just said shows that's a lie, slut

 

[Care4all]

Kaz,

You are INCORRECT that there is any kind of special tax break for Married couples so this whole thread is for NAUGHT.

In FACT there is a tax PENALTY for being married filing jointly....when you reach the higher income levels

Two people being taxed vs one person being taxed....Joining income does not save you in taxes, it actually makes you go in to a HIGHER tax bracket with less combined income than two single people filing that live together.

Marriage penalty - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Under these tax rates, two single people who each earned $87,850 would each file as "Single" and each would pay a marginal tax rate of 25%. However, if those same two people were married, their combined income would be exactly the same as before (2 * $87,850 = $175,700), but the "Married filing Jointly" tax brackets would push them into a higher marginal rate of 28%, costing them an additional $879 in taxes.

In the most extreme case, two single people who each earned $400,000 would each pay a marginal tax rate of 35%; but if those same two people filed as "Married, filing jointly" then their combined income would be exactly the same (2 * $400,000 = $800,000), yet $350,000 of that income would be taxed as the higher 39.6% rate, resulting in a marriage penalty of $32,119 in extra taxes ($16,100 for the 39.6% bracket alone, plus the remainder is due to the higher phase out of the lower brackets.)

So complete exemption from the death tax is not a tax break? How do you figure that?

And really, you don't know how tax rates work for married people? What you said doesn't contradict me. If the wife stays home, they pay a lower tax rate. What you are talking about is if they both work and earn relatively equal salaries.

However, I said the "concept" of marriage is having a family, in that case they pay a lower rate, which is clearly a tax break no matter how you slice it. Your scenario is them not doing that

You were Kaz, stop your dancing....not many women stay home and don't work...and there is a PENALTY for being married and earning high incomes.

As far as the estate tax, two people don't die together at the same time....and most all people in the nation do NOT have $5,000,000 plus in their estate when they die.

it's utter bull crap that you have posted on this and taxes.

 

[Seawytch]

I'm not straight, I'm gay. I have no interest in marrying a man anymore than Mildred Loving wanted to marry a black man.

I have a civil marriage license issued by my state, just like YOU DO. My license is treated differently thanks to the unconstitutional DOMA...which will be struck down in a few weeks.

Being black changed who you could marry for every black. Being gay changes who you can marry for zero gays. Yeah, that's the same, Rosa Parks

That isn't a response. You have a civil marriage license issued by a U.S. state. It's valid in all 50 states. My civil marriage license issued by a U.S. state is not. Even an anti gay bigot like you can see that's unconstitutional.

Don't understand the Full Faith and Credit clause, do you slut?

I do bigot, but apparently you don't.

What you just said shows that's a lie, slut

Really? My marriage license issued by the state of CA is treated differently than my brother's, despite both being issued by the state of California, his is valid in all 50 states while mine is not.

A 40 year old Dugger relative marries his 15 year old 1st cousin in Arkansas...THAT marriage is valid in all 50 states. DOMA violates FF&C.

 

[Syriusly]

And yes- marriage laws absolutely do change who someone can marry based upon gender.

Name one

Sure.

Marriage bans based upon race or gender.

Virginia: forbid marriage between two persons of different races.
Georgia: forbid marriage between two persons of the same gender.

Race or gender change who someone could marry- a white man couldn't marry a black woman, a man can't marry a man- race and gender.

 

[Syriusly]

Sorry Faun. Don't worry, we'll be at odds on the next subject. Well that is unless the democrats start getting consistent wrt. their views on liberty. I'll be on your side every time you side with liberty.

Yes, because liberty is getting other people's money of course

Which you are fine with getting- but don't want other people to get.

If they are gay.

They can get it when marriage leads to procreation. For me it did, twice.
t

No- couples get the marriage exemption- regardless of procreation.

You want to deny the 'marriage bennies' that you get- only to homosexual couples. While they pay for your bennies.

You think a pair of 80 year old newly weds are eligible for 'marriage bennies' but not a lesbian couple with 5 kids.

Like I said- you are fine with getting yours- but don't want other people to get it.

If they are gay.

Again, how does it make sense I want benefits when I oppose the benefits? Is all the spinning you're doing making you dizzy?

I never implied that any of your bigotry makes sense.

You want to deny the 'marriage bennies' that you get- but only to homosexual couples. While they pay for your bennies.

You think a pair of 80 year old newly weds are eligible for 'marriage bennies' but not a lesbian couple with 5 kids.

Like I said- you are fine with getting yours- but don't want other people to get it.

If they are gay